Re: [arch-d] New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization-01.txt

Also, Mark and I have a slightly updated take on our draft here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lazanski-consolidation/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lazanski-consolidation/>

It seems that there is common ground among all three and also some big differences. However, its clear to me that there are technical, economic and policy related issues that are intertwined and need to be discussed further. The unintended consequences of legislation in, say, Russia (for example) is based in consolidation taking place on US platforms. These can’t be ignored.

Looking forward to a further discussion!

Dominique 

> On 10 Jan 2022, at 12:17, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Il 09/01/2022 10:18 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> ha scritto:
>> 
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> Happy New Year! 
>> 
>> This is a bit more polished, thanks to some holiday time, some quarantine time, and feedback received. 
>> 
>> Responses and suggestions still most welcome.
> I don't know if you had a chance to have a look at the new draft I posted a few days ago to the model-t list: 
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bertola-everything-but-the-user/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bertola-everything-but-the-user/> 
> 
> It's a take (a personal position) on the discussion on a possible expansion of the RFC 3552 Internet threat model. It looks like we are attacking similar problems from different angles; especially the problem of centralisation - which IMHO is significantly worsened by having a threat model which considers non-user-controlled endpoint elements as out of scope, rather than as potentially adversarial intermediaries much like the in-network ones - and the discussion on multistakeholderism. 
> 
> On this latter point, commenting on S Moonesamy's observation and your recent reply, I would also say that the IETF is currently not a fully multistakeholder entity, not for the lack of formalized constituencies but for the lack of significant participation by many of the non-technical Internet constituencies. However, whether it makes sense for non-technical stakeholders to participate in a technical SDO - and how - is up for discussion, and as you will find in the draft, my suggestion is that non-technical stakeholders should come into play in selected situations, only when the non-technical impact of the new standard looks relevant. 
> -- 
> 
> Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
> vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com <mailto:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> 
> Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss